|
Post by StiffUpperAngus on Apr 7, 2008 18:13:35 GMT -5
i see business and economics isnt travis's strongpoint
|
|
|
Post by travishayes89 on Apr 7, 2008 18:58:06 GMT -5
How much did Guns N' Roses spend on the early albums (or better yet, all the albums), probably not anywhere close to the amount that Axl has spent on the as of yet, unreleased Chinese Democracy.
I've heard that he's spent nearly 3 million dollars on it, no label will release an album that's had so much shakeups...
The shakeups: The "band" leaving (Slash and the guys) Multiple line up changes Multiple tours (that could count if ticket sales weren't as good as Slash era) and also the ever persistent "It will be out this year" every year since 1994.
Why would a label take a gamble on an album that's cost so much, when they could release the album that Slash and Axl both tried to stop, "Greatest Hits." The label got tired of waiting for Axl, and released Greatest Hits because of it.
I think if it wasn't for the label looking stupid because of it, they'd just drop Axl's ass...but it'd anger fans.
One question, if Axl is going to release it, why doesn't he stop touring for a period of six months, finish up the production, and then do a TV and Radio promo tour?
(PS, I know how businesses operate, if the label was to release it, they'd want more than they usually get to get their money back, I doubt Axl paid the 3 million hisself.)
|
|
|
Post by rhece6 on Apr 8, 2008 0:22:13 GMT -5
Exactly, when you make something then sell it, you would want to make money on it. Not o it at a loss. It's clearly one of the fundamentals of business law.
|
|
|
Post by travishayes89 on Apr 8, 2008 16:35:38 GMT -5
Yeah, or at least break even.
I don't think any label would release a multi-million dollar album by a band with such a shaky foundation.
PS: Also, you have to take into account the diehard GNR w/ Slash fans who won't even touch the album because of Slash's inexistance.
Want proof, go look on YouTube at all the recent GNR videos and see all the "Slash rocks" comments.
|
|
|
Post by StiffUpperAngus on Apr 8, 2008 18:14:58 GMT -5
Exactly, when you make something then sell it, you would want to make money on it. Not o it at a loss. It's clearly one of the fundamentals of business law. which is why not releaseing it at all would be pure loss...duh
|
|
|
Post by travishayes89 on Apr 8, 2008 18:26:31 GMT -5
Yeah, but if they release it, they'd have to spend even more money on things like design, mastering, and manufacturing.
|
|
|
Post by rhece6 on Apr 9, 2008 1:41:01 GMT -5
Exactly, when you make something then sell it, you would want to make money on it. Not o it at a loss. It's clearly one of the fundamentals of business law. which is why not releaseing it at all would be pure loss...duh Yes because when Drew said it would be smarter to not release something you have spent money on rather that sell it and get some cash, the question is, what cash?
|
|
|
Post by travishayes89 on Apr 9, 2008 13:09:25 GMT -5
Yeah, the diehard old-school GNR fans won't buy it...they'll download it.
Also, CD sales in general have been declining in the past decade.
|
|
|
Post by acdcUSSR on Apr 15, 2008 20:23:37 GMT -5
Cut your losses dumbasses. Recoup what you can. If I spend 10 bucks on a table that will only be sold for 8 (I spent 10 because i fucked up the 1st table I built), it'd be better for me to sell that one for 8 bucks and get something. Duh.
Try 15+ million spent on it.
|
|
|
Post by acdcUSSR on Apr 15, 2008 20:24:59 GMT -5
And it's all being held up by the label now according to GN'R. They're finished with it, it's just a matter of final production.
|
|